1
Programs / Re: Bézier Curves (Demo)
« on: July 16, 2021, 07:14:02 pm »
Wow, that is so cool
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Programs / Re: QB64-SDL 2020
« on: January 16, 2020, 12:21:30 pm »Closet, Closest... Huh, my "s" is missing!Well, that was embarras-s-ing. Why didn't someone hand my s?
Pete :D
Clearly, Pete has gotten off his S
3
QB64 Discussion / Re: 3d fps game (Fulopke es az ellenallok)_MAPTRIANGLE3D
« on: December 06, 2019, 11:05:03 am »
Wow, that's so cool! Thanks for sharing it!
4
QB64 Discussion / Re: QB64 1.3 IDE oddity/bug Repeatable
« on: November 27, 2019, 02:34:04 pm »
I tried it, it works right for me.
5
Programs / Re: Polybius
« on: November 22, 2019, 04:45:56 pm »
If x = x + 2?
When would this be true?
When would this be true?
6
Programs / Re: Polybius
« on: November 21, 2019, 04:51:52 pm »Well my post was serious, except for the insulting to cavemen part which was also a joke.Keybone, I agree with you about the issue with the word LET.
The fact of the matter is though that people really do criticize for the use of LET which is rediculous.
It's like shut the heck up and mind your own business. If you dont like someone's use of LET then don't use their code.
Btw, I was well aware that the wiki article was a joke...
The only value I see is let solves a problem with the EQUAL sign. You were taught in school = means stuff on the left is the same as stuff on the right. Its not an ASSIGNMENT, its a STATEMENT. Enter BASIC. The idea was to have a way to assign value to something.
LET gets that done. Let this thing have this value.
So if you do that a million times, you can drop the LET and keep going, no problem
That can be the only value to LET I can think of. (other than old man syndrome where it was good enough for my dad and his dad, etc etc)
7
Programs / Re: smoking calculator
« on: November 16, 2019, 01:49:54 pm »
Dang, I was expecting to see a calculator with smoke coming off of it
8
QB64 Discussion / Re: Embedded numerics in a text field
« on: November 16, 2019, 01:45:46 pm »
[Topic creep warning!]
Upon further investigation, on the topic of not jumping out of for loops on a C64 (if you care)
I found we didn't/dont have the EXIT FOR command in c64 basic, but you can test with IF/GOTO within one, and doing that will cause problems.
A FOR loop sets up for returning back until the loop status is cleared. The stack has the address of the FOR statement and it's variable name and value. If you were to just GOTO out of it all that remains on the stack, and if done enough times your stack becomes full
I imagine the EXIT FOR command we have in QB64 will clear that and not be a problem. The issue the never EXIT people have is the (seeming) lack of elegance to see the process of the code. This seems a matter of opinion to me.
Upon further investigation, on the topic of not jumping out of for loops on a C64 (if you care)
I found we didn't/dont have the EXIT FOR command in c64 basic, but you can test with IF/GOTO within one, and doing that will cause problems.
A FOR loop sets up for returning back until the loop status is cleared. The stack has the address of the FOR statement and it's variable name and value. If you were to just GOTO out of it all that remains on the stack, and if done enough times your stack becomes full
I imagine the EXIT FOR command we have in QB64 will clear that and not be a problem. The issue the never EXIT people have is the (seeming) lack of elegance to see the process of the code. This seems a matter of opinion to me.
9
QB64 Discussion / Re: Embedded numerics in a text field
« on: November 14, 2019, 06:18:23 pm »
Very nice. I was going to set a string to "0123456789" and a for loop and MID$, but this is good too.
Wow, as many ways to do it as snowflakes!
As for the EXIT fear. Now I see.
I have on occasion set a flag in a for loop and just let it run, it will keep going after its found what it needs.
Slower, but with no EXIT .001% more elegant I suppose.
As for a while/wend, you can decide when to get out and any good programmer should be looking for these outs. I expect them. I use them. *shrug*
I've seen nasty looking code and one with lots of exits is not among them IMHO
[skip this part if you don't care about c64 basic]
The thread link you posted asked "is it bad practice to use exit for?" and the answer "no" was posted.
I recall something about jumping out of for loops willy nilly in c64 basic. We didn't have the exit for, we just had goto.
So you can use it, fine, but you were leaving the for loop info on the stack! Not good! I don't know how you fix that, but at least for this case jumping out like that was bad. *shrug*
Wow, as many ways to do it as snowflakes!
As for the EXIT fear. Now I see.
I have on occasion set a flag in a for loop and just let it run, it will keep going after its found what it needs.
Slower, but with no EXIT .001% more elegant I suppose.
As for a while/wend, you can decide when to get out and any good programmer should be looking for these outs. I expect them. I use them. *shrug*
I've seen nasty looking code and one with lots of exits is not among them IMHO
[skip this part if you don't care about c64 basic]
The thread link you posted asked "is it bad practice to use exit for?" and the answer "no" was posted.
I recall something about jumping out of for loops willy nilly in c64 basic. We didn't have the exit for, we just had goto.
So you can use it, fine, but you were leaving the for loop info on the stack! Not good! I don't know how you fix that, but at least for this case jumping out like that was bad. *shrug*
10
QB64 Discussion / Re: Embedded numerics in a text field
« on: November 14, 2019, 12:14:38 pm »
Question, who are these "anti- EXIT FOR brigade" and why are they up in arms?
I think a EXIT FOR is just fine, even as good as a WHILE/WEND.
Back in the C-64 days (now I imagine some pitchforks coming out) we were told, don't exit a for loop early, you leave things on the stack, do it too much and the stack will explode and you will get a mem error.
Surely this is no longer a problem? Our new and modern QB64 won't do that, right?
Maybe this brigade is up in arms over some other issue? *shrug*
(By the way, there's another way to do this
Set a var to 0
iterate thru as before, but add the INSTR to it every time
Test if its > 0 at the end.
)
I think a EXIT FOR is just fine, even as good as a WHILE/WEND.
Back in the C-64 days (now I imagine some pitchforks coming out) we were told, don't exit a for loop early, you leave things on the stack, do it too much and the stack will explode and you will get a mem error.
Surely this is no longer a problem? Our new and modern QB64 won't do that, right?
Maybe this brigade is up in arms over some other issue? *shrug*
(By the way, there's another way to do this
Set a var to 0
iterate thru as before, but add the INSTR to it every time
Test if its > 0 at the end.
)
11
Programs / Re: GALAXY Generator - Latest Version
« on: October 22, 2019, 05:31:40 pm »
Galaxy found! This is a great program. Well done. I made a few dozen of them, now I have no where to put them
12
Programs / Re: Cartesian Coordinate System Setup for QB64
« on: October 21, 2019, 11:19:34 am »
Very cool. Excellent work!
13
Programs / Re: GALAXY Generator - Latest Version
« on: October 21, 2019, 11:16:37 am »
I see no galaxy. This is the epic form of "its right there!"
14
Programs / Re: Hexagonal Life
« on: September 27, 2019, 08:49:36 pm »
I love this game. I keep playing it and playing it. Hex shapes seem more pleasing to the eye than the square ones.
15
Programs / Re: Hexagonal Life
« on: September 26, 2019, 11:12:59 am »
This makes me think of the game Othello. There have also been some basic programs that imitate that as well.